Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    What if the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge?
    Indeed, what if he just knew roughly where a kidney was? It's not as if this is forbidden knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    Until the day finally arrives when someone can finally give a convincing argument for the Joe Bloggs book .... kidney removal for dummies and the blind ....
    then yep

    and cheers .... good ole Mathew and his grapes lol
    What if the killer had medical/anatomical knowledge?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    i don't believe either Chapman or Eddowes were carried 'down the street' either ... you're just failing to see the obvious option .
    Then why donít you simply enlighten me instead of trying to get me to indulge in a guessing game PS? Call me stupid if you like. As you say, I'm failing to see it. The usual solution to that state of affairs is that the proposer actually explains what heís suggesting?

    Your mind is closed to anything other than a random local of flower and dean street I suspect so you will fail to see it .
    Of the named suspects the one that I prefer wasnít a local. Iíve never thought that the ripper had to be a local man. Local knowledge would have helped of course but I donít feel that it was imperative.

    "could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened" says it all really lol
    The answer is quite simply that a body was found with a kidney removed .... rather than just accept without thought to the preposterous suggestion that it was done in the dark and move on , I prefer to consider just how it could have happened .
    Has it been categorically proven (or even just to the satisfaction of a majority) that the killer couldnít have removed a kidney in situ? Iíd say thatís a no.

    and then you're off giving drivel about God's and stuff , completely irrelevant
    Because my toes curl up when people start over complicating purely so that they can jump up and down and say that theyíve discovered something that no one else has ever noticed.

    Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found but you choose to ignore it as you did when you said 'it happened'
    Theres a book on the JFK assassination called Best Evidence by David Lipton. Itís a very thick, intricately argued case that Kennedyís head wounds were surgically altered on AirForce One! It nonsense of course (and the most boring book Iíve ever read by a mile). If you set out to look for a conspiracy evidence tends to fall from the trees.

    Find another serial killer who cut out kidneys in the darkness at the roadside in lightening quick time if you wish to give the lone random a smidgen of credibility
    A nice Black Swan Fallacy to end with.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Hi packers stem (great name by the way):


    And so have I. So I guess we're done.

    - Jeff
    Until the day finally arrives when someone can finally give a convincing argument for the Joe Bloggs book .... kidney removal for dummies and the blind ....
    then yep

    and cheers .... good ole Mathew and his grapes lol

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Hi packers stem (great name by the way):
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    I have , on numerous occasions .
    were talking about it now on another thread with regards to the kidney lol
    And so have I. So I guess we're done.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    You first.

    - Jeff
    I have , on numerous occasions .
    were talking about it now on another thread with regards to the kidney lol

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    Feel free to explain what you think demonstrates your claim
    You first.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    There is not one iota of evidence to support that statement. Every detail of the crime scenes indicates all the victims were killed exactly where they were found.

    - Jeff
    Feel free to explain what you think demonstrates your claim

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    ...

    Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found ...
    There is not one iota of evidence to support that statement. Every detail of the crime scenes indicates all the victims were killed exactly where they were found.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The Torso Victims were body parts. They didnít require someone carrying a fully clothed corpse along a street unnoticed. The question therefore is why would someone do this?
    Could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened. How do you know that the killer was unskilled?
    Theres nothing ever straight forward about a conspiracy theory but theyíre easy to come up with. Find an error and label it deliberate. Find a coincidence a label it impossible. Find an unknown and fill the gap. Label the obvious as too obvious. Reply to an inconvenient statement with ďwell they would say that wouldnít they?Ē Thereís not a shred of evidence that those women werenít killed were they were found. Nor is there any evidence that The Illuminati were harvesting the organs to bury in the grounds of Rosslyn Chapel to bring on the Second Coming of a messiah called Colin either. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, working alone, killing women in the street for reasons known only to himself.
    i don't believe either Chapman or Eddowes were carried 'down the street' either ... you're just failing to see the obvious option .
    Your mind is closed to anything other than a random local of flower and dean street I suspect so you will fail to see it .
    "could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened" says it all really lol
    The answer is quite simply that a body was found with a kidney removed .... rather than just accept without thought to the preposterous suggestion that it was done in the dark and move on , I prefer to consider just how it could have happened .

    and then you're off giving drivel about God's and stuff , completely irrelevant

    Trouble is there is a shed load of evidence showing that they were not killed where found but you choose to ignore it as you did when you said 'it happened'
    Find another serial killer who cut out kidneys in the darkness at the roadside in lightening quick time if you wish to give the lone random a smidgen of credibility

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    The Torso Victims were body parts. They didnít require someone carrying a fully clothed corpse along a street unnoticed. The question therefore is why would someone do this?
    Could someone remove a kidney in that lighting? Apparently yes because it happened. How do you know that the killer was unskilled?
    Theres nothing ever straight forward about a conspiracy theory but theyíre easy to come up with. Find an error and label it deliberate. Find a coincidence a label it impossible. Find an unknown and fill the gap. Label the obvious as too obvious. Reply to an inconvenient statement with ďwell they would say that wouldnít they?Ē Thereís not a shred of evidence that those women werenít killed were they were found. Nor is there any evidence that The Illuminati were harvesting the organs to bury in the grounds of Rosslyn Chapel to bring on the Second Coming of a messiah called Colin either. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, working alone, killing women in the street for reasons known only to himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n712369]
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    I adjust nothing. There is no serial killer narrative. JTR was a serial killer. The notion that someone would kill those women and then dump them elsewhere defies reason. The women were killed where they were found. All else is laughable.
    Is it also laughable that the deaths of the torso victims took place at different locations ?

    You say you adjust nothing but you will be selective with witness testimony, ignoring the strongest should it oppose the theory and accept the weaker should it not be an obstruction ,make up lighting where there was none and claim that the local gardner was capable of removing a kidney in said lighting , to prove to yourself and others that a random local serial killer was on the loose .

    The 'reason' is really quite simple and straight forward and once you realise it , it explains plenty

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    [QUOTE=packers stem;n712361]
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Brown arrived in Mitre Square at 2.20
    The body was still warm , despite it being colder and wetter than in the Chapman case .
    He gave an accurate expected TOD
    Nobody disagrees
    Phillips however .....
    Why ?
    Simply because Richardson saw nothing , when he had to had a body been there while it was starting to get light .
    You adjust your overwhelming evidence to fit the 'serial killer' narrative where it suits do you not ?
    I adjust nothing. There is no serial killer narrative. JTR was a serial killer. The notion that someone would kill those women and then dump them elsewhere defies reason. The women were killed where they were found. All else is laughable.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n712358]
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

    Itís not a case of ignoring Phillips itís a case of accepting the undoubted fact that estimating a TOD at this time could be wildly inaccurate due the knowledge available. This isnít an interpretation itís accepting what real medical experts tell us. You know, people that really know what theyíre talking about on the subject. This is inconvenient to some but facts are facts. They arenít malleable just to accommodate a theory.
    Brown arrived in Mitre Square at 2.20
    The body was still warm , despite it being colder and wetter than in the Chapman case .
    He gave an accurate expected TOD
    Nobody disagrees
    Phillips however .....
    Why ?
    Simply because Richardson saw nothing , when he had to had a body been there while it was starting to get light .
    You adjust your overwhelming evidence to fit the 'serial killer' narrative where it suits do you not ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    [QUOTE=packers stem;n712356]
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    There is zero overwhelming evidence .Just interpretations by those who wish to believe .
    Ignoring Phillips in Hanbury, excuses for lighting , the ridiculous, unfounded belief in 'slash and grab' ......
    it's not 'evidence' it's alternate reality
    Itís not a case of ignoring Phillips itís a case of accepting the undoubted fact that estimating a TOD at this time could be wildly inaccurate due the knowledge available. This isnít an interpretation itís accepting what real medical experts tell us. You know, people that really know what theyíre talking about on the subject. This is inconvenient to some but facts are facts. They arenít malleable just to accommodate a theory.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X